We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Look, the problem with special prosecutors is you assemble a team of the best of the best in search of a crime. Normally, you have a crime and then the prosecutors go out and try to prove it. With a special prosecutor, you start with Whitewater and you end up with a blue dress. That’s a long journey. Here, the Russia thing obviously is a pretext, and it’s going to be a subject of the investigation. But it appears to be going into the territory that Trump has wanted to protect, namely his business. At some point, we could come to a crisis. And I worry for the country because this is not good that the presidency, the judiciary, and Congress would be at loggerheads when you really don’t have anybody that ultimately would adjudicate. It would be the Supreme Court but we know that can cause real reverberations for decades.

Mueller Plunges Across Trump's Red Line - A Wall Street Journal story claimed the investigation had moved before a grand jury, while CNN reported it was looking into potential financial crimes unrelated to the 2016 election.

For the first time in Harvard University’s history, the majority of students accepted into the incoming freshman class are not white, a milestone for an institution that prides itself on educating future presidents, CEOs, and world leaders.

But Harvard’s push to broaden the diversity of its student ranks comes as the Trump administration intensifies its focus on affirmative action policies and suggests it will investigate how colleges shape the racial makeup of their campuses.

The US Justice Department is preparing to redirect resources from its civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, The New York Times reported this week.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration said it had no broad plans to investigate whether college and university admissions programs discriminate against students based on race and that it was looking into a single complaint from a coalition of Asian-American groups filed in 2015. The coalition filed an administrative complaint against Harvard University, alleging that the school and other Ivy League institutions are using racial quotas that shut out high-scoring Asians.

And there you have it - an article about Harvard's incoming freshman class is actually all about Trump's thinly-veiled white supremacist policies. How do we know this is about whites? The NYT said so. True, they did allow space for the rebuttal that the DoJ is not actually investigating discrimination against whites but following up on complaints of discrimination against Asian-Americans, but we all know that's just some of that alternative facts stuff. The NYT knows better than the DoJ what the DoJ is investigating.

But as an aside, is 50.8% of the incoming class really non-white, or do they just identify as non-white in a racially-fluid sort of way?

The issue that concerns me is not race or percentage that are white but rather is Harvard and other schools lowering standards to enroll non-white students. I would think this should be Harvard's primary concern as well. I admit that I am concerned when my doctor or specialist is non-white simply because so many non-whites are "affirmative actioned" into college and pushed through whatever program they are enrolled in.

There is a story about flying in Africa. The African's world look into the cockpit to see who was flying the plane before they would board. If it was an African they would not fly with him. If it was a white pilot they would board the plane for their flight. They knew from experience that the African pilots simply were not trained well enough and/or not capable pilots. This is the exact problem with affirmative action. It doesn't matter so much if it is just a school teacher because what the hell just another bad teacher, ho hum. But if it is a doctor or a pilot etc. people can die.

IdahoBob: The issue that concerns me is not race or percentage that are white but rather is Harvard and other schools lowering standards to enroll non-white students.

The old system of acceptance was whether your family were alumni, which tended to result in a preponderance of whites within each new class, regardless of ability. A "gentleman's C" was not untypical for graduates of the legacy system. Ah, the good ol' days!

What you said was partially true. It was easier to get accepted if your family was rich and an alumni. That was not the case for the majority of students attending ivy league schools it was simply one of the avenues. If you think I am favoring THAT version of affirmative action then you are wrong. I am simply saying that all colleges should not lower their standards to meet racial quotas. What I would prefer is to see some effort in providing promising minority students with better college prep and then allowing them to compete for acceptance. I am fully onboard with the idea of getting more minorities into the higher education system and subsequently into better jobs/careers. As a plural society we cannot discriminate and we need to take steps to compensate for past discrimination. But simple affirmative action sets up the minority students (and job applicants) to fail because we are failing them in the K-12 area and in society as pre-adults. I think your over reaction to this idea is part of the problem. Not everyone who points out failing programs is a racist/misogynist/homophobe and to immediately resort to that meme is counter productive.

IdahoBob: What I would prefer is to see some effort in providing promising minority students with better college prep and then allowing them to compete for acceptance.

At the expense of not providing similar aid to promising non-minority students?

King had a good idea in this regard. In the long run, it is a matter of the poor not having the same opportunities, so focusing on the economically disadvantaged will help minorities and non-minorities.

No! I had in mind the NAACP and Jessie Jackson and BLM and all the other groups who complain about inequality. Why not do something useful with their money and their time and actually try to solve the problems. But nooooo! They want to extract money and free stuff from politicians.

No! I'm talking about fixing the K-12 schools, getting the parents of the thugs involved in their education and to actually make the little miscreants study and do their homework. Maybe even take an actual job and earn enough to hire a tutor for their kids instead of spending all their money on drugs and alcohol. Take some responsibilty for your own damned children for crying out loud.

Since colleges are now mostly about sucking up Federal money going after minorities makes sense since it's easier for them to get into college with out any qualifications and they are likely to drop out sooner leaving the schools with the money.

Since the makeup of the United States is 72% white, it seems that using the Obama administration's own methodology for discrimination (pure correlation with ethnic breakdown), Harvard is engaging in per se discrimination against white people.

I have a 2016 Mazda, and it's a mixed bag:
Pros: Has adequate power with very good mileage. Great braking. Handling very good. Looks good IMO. Backup camera & laterals sensors are useful. Interior looks good, is comfortable & easy to clean.
Cons: Stereo operates through central control system. Menus have to be navigated to do simple things - very bad idea. Central control system loads slowly and can't be used while car is in reverse. Lane departure sensor is OFF bc it's annoying. And sat nav sucks. It can't even be used unless car is completely stopped even if my wife is in the passenger seat. Aside from the misguided "infotainment" system, a very good vehicle for a reasonable price.

My pet peave with new cars is the built in alarm system and the "smart" keys. I bought a new car awhile back and because they couldn't find an existing one with the options I wanted they custom built it on the assembly line. I tried to get them to exclude the smart key and the alarm/anti-theft feature and they said they could not. I hate that stupid key. It sits on my side table while all the rest of the keys I use in life are in my pocket. It is bulky and cannot usefully be duplicated. But worse if I lose it I'm out of luck. Imagine on a road trip you lose your key; your only choice is to rent a car to continue and sometime later get another key made and drive/fly back to pick up your car. I truly do not understand the need for either the anti-theft system or the smart key.

I've had 2 cars now that constantly have this light on my dash, no matter how much I fill my tires to the 'correct' pressures. The light goes off for a couple of days and then it's right back on again.

I don't WANT or NEED this feature, yet I'm stuck with it. I just want tires that I check for inflation when I deem it a problem.

The "bright" light switch belongs on the floor and controlled by your foot . . . NOT on the steering column. Plus there is no standardization. In some cars you have to push the turn signal indicator ahead and on some models you have to pull it back. Sometimes you can flick the turn signal lever and on come the brights and the guy coming at you thinks your an asshole.

Then there's the wipers. The wiper switch belongs on the dash. Slide the switch all the way over and the wipers are OFF. Now they all seem to have six or seven speeds and it is difficult to impossible to find the "off" position once you have them running.

And of course the headlights. That switch belongs on the dash as well. Pull the knob out and they are on, push it in and they are off. What's so hard about that? Instead they have that on the turn signal indicator as well with the biggest problem being you can inadvertently switch the headlights from 'automatic' to 'manual' meaning they won't automatically shut off when the engine is shut off.

And woe to you if you leave your window down and it rains on that high tech turn signal arm. Rain can ruin it and it will be a couple hundred to fix it as well.

At its best, socialism offers the life of the slave under the benevolent master. Socialism is seldom at its best, even for the most privileged.

QUOTE:

First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may "keep to spend." We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.

Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the negro slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don't even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the negro slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, but we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much? Suppose the man with a grievance didn't vote for him?

Left unsaid is that the city has been run by Democrats for generations. Until fairly recently, the state had been consistently run by Democrats for generations, too.

When I lived there, I worked for the largest employer in the metropolitan area, Martin Marietta. It employed 4,500 people. When I moved to North Carolina, IBM was the largest employer in town at 11,000. Northern Telecom was next at 7,500. New Orleans is a great place for a party but a bad place for a business.

Corruption in the city is everywhere, including the police. The State Police would offer to assist the New Orleans Police Department every year I lived there, but each year the the offer was declined. I used to think it was because the NOPD didn't think they needed the help, but it was/is probably because they didn't want outsiders finding out what was going on.

Don't forget that NO had civilian boards to manage their levee systems and that it was one of these levee systems that failed in Katrina. These boards were notorious for their graft, fraud waste and abuse. The boards were staffed with cronies/Democrats and spent the mostly federal funds for unrelated things like new cars, vacations and call girls. The disaster in NO after Katrina is virtually 100% the fault of this misuse of federal funds by these

It has always amazed me--the incongruity of the National Flood Insurance Program. Most of those areas where the flooding happens are areas where there has been uncontrolled development (i.e. free market). They are also the areas of rich soil and in a larger percentage of those areas the growing season is long and productive. Why is it then that the liberals have continually refused to allow these areas to be planted rather than built upon? Secondly, why do they demand then the low cost insurance for a guaranteed-- absolutely-- to-- happen event?
Don't worry there won't be any change to the current flood insurance program for a very long time. The reason being that much of that money goes to many areas in Western Washington State. You know about those folks and their corruption and very confused ideologies don't you?

In Illinois they determined that 40% of the phosphorus in the Illinois River was coming from just one place, the city of Chicago. Phosphorus runoff is largely an issue with urban areas. The experts went back and forth for years blaming nitrogen, then phosphorus, then said to heck with it we'll just blame both. It's easy to blame agriculture since it represents a little over 1% of the population. Tell people in town they can't fertilize their lawn and are going to have to pay for treating water that runs off from their yards and you will have a rebellion. From an economic standpoint the part of the fishing industry that is being impacted is a blip on the radar compared to messing with the breadbasket of the entire country. This is being pushed by groups whose ultimate goal is to do away with private ownership and management of farmland and putting it all under the control of our super efficient federal government.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: